The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.

Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.

delmar wrote:Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

delmar england wrote:For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

is this correct?

this trace evidence

and

this

in The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey hypothetically speaking evidence of an intruder?

how would Susan Ballou, an actual forensic scientist

evaluate that evidence?

more to the point, are RDI using the same forensic science that actual forensic scientists featured on the forensic files as well as intruder theorists such as redpill are using and applying it to crime scene evidence?

specifically, in The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

is there any evidence comparable to

this trace evidence

and

this

and how would an actual forensic scientist

apply forensic science to forensic evidence ?

would doing so lead to intruder theory or RDI?

did they find only 1 unsourced fiber in The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey or more?other types of unsourced trace evidence? on the clothing of Jonbenet?

this

this trace evidence

and

this

was the scientific evidence that proved an intruder had committed this crime

and is finding such evidence stronger or weaker evidence than finding it on a hair brush in the bedroom?

and is finding DNA profile in Jonbenet panties and long johns stronger or weaker evidence than finding a DNA profile on a pillow case

intruder theorists use the same scientific standards used to solve cases in which there was an intruder as seen on the Forensic Files, to The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

i once told SD, there is no conflict. if you will not turn, then you will be destroyed.

The thing is, RDI has turned into a game to keep the conversation alive for whatever reason. I don’t believe anyone really believes it and it’s like a ongoing developing murder mystery play. It’s a forensic free discussion because it’s all about the psychology of a wealthy dysfunctional family who murdered their daughter. There is no room for an intruder. It gets clicks and sells advertising.

searchinGirl wrote:The thing is, RDI has turned into a game to keep the conversation alive for whatever reason. I don’t believe anyone really believes it and it’s like a ongoing developing murder mystery play. It’s a forensic free discussion because it’s all about the psychology of a wealthy dysfunctional family who murdered their daughter. There is no room for an intruder. It gets clicks and sells advertising.

how many RDI have seen the forensic files, understand it, then apply it?

i do think though the way the average person thinks of the crime is if they find the persons credible, and obviously RDI don't find the R's credible.

Certainly, some look for ways to discredit them at every turn. By all accounts in my world Ramsey is a stand up guy. My neighbor thinks Patsy was beyond the pale crazy and pretty much speaks along the BPD formal line of groupthink thought. Of course she’s the one who told me the DNA is not in CODIS. So, there is that.

People parrot what other people tell them because they are too lazy to put it together for themselves. I don’t understand why it’s so important anymore. I’m going out on on limb here to say RDI cares only about psychology and their own personal interpretation of their made up evidence; whereas IDI are willing to examine the science and common sense of it all.

I watched the new Paula Zhan show tonight and it was about Rosie Tapia...I could have stepped away for a moment but I don’t think they made mention of the Sweetheart Barbie doll left on her grave. Hmm.

searchinGirl wrote:I watched the new Paula Zhan show tonight and it was about Rosie Tapia...I could have stepped away for a moment but I don’t think they made mention of the Sweetheart Barbie doll left on her grave. Hmm.

I watched the whole thing and no mention of the Sweetheart Barbie Doll on Rosie Tapia's grave.